Well The obvious has been stated already, but their are some reasons that I would think are way more important to keep the life total at 30.
1. Tendrils of Agony.
This would go into every single Black deck, because the differance between 10 storm and usually its 8-9 with all the painful land in the format and 14 is huge. you don't even need to try. Tendrils is already borderline in some lists, Dropping the lifetotal down to 20 would mean run combo or go home.
2. Control Decks utilize life total for card advantage. It's harder to understand this point. But anyone who's played control knows that you will always win with >10 Life. It's because a number of factors, But it's hard for control decks to exist, because of the highlander part of the format. Aggro would rampage, because most decks need the extra turn to even stand a chance.
You hit the nail on the head here for me. I totally whole heartedly agree with the second part of your post. I was actually going to mention that but you beat me to it. I can't count how many times I've won with less than 10 life. Control would be a thing of the past if the life totals went down. Or at least the decks would be full of board sweepers from turn 2 on.
Do you guys even realize that aggro is practically nonexistent right now in 1v1? Having 10 extra life keeps aggro from being viable, because it gives control and combo decks the extra time they need to blow out aggro decks.
Not only is this format totally broken, but it's also imbalanced in terms of archetypes. An ideal format is one that where all archetypes stand a chance of being viable. I do not want to see this format devolve into one where blue and black are oppressive, and attacking is fruitless.
Do you guys even realize that aggro is practically nonexistent right now in 1v1? Having 10 extra life keeps aggro from being viable, because it gives control and combo decks the extra time they need to blow out aggro decks.
Not only is this format totally broken, but it's also imbalanced in terms of archetypes. An ideal format is one that where all archetypes stand a chance of being viable. I do not want to see this format devolve into one where blue and black are oppressive, and attacking is fruitless.
If we changed the life totals down to 20 then we would still have the exact same problem we do now. Only it would be reversed and aggro would be the dominant archetype.
My playgroup recently swapped from 40 to 30 life, and the difference is punishing. I can tell I would have to drop teneb altogether if life went to 20. I'm already looking at the B/R Wort list in the 1v1 thread.
We play semi competitive 1v1, so I don't have as much of the tournament experience that posters like SC have. But I think dropping to 20 isn't the way to make aggro work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Philonus »
Counter spells stop everything. It's the condom Trojan dreams of making. But like condoms, if you don't have one, you still keep on playing and take the risk. Most of us wouldn't be here if this wasn't a fact.
2. Control Decks utilize life total for card advantage. It's harder to understand this point. But anyone who's played control knows that you will always win with >10 Life. It's because a number of factors, But it's hard for control decks to exist, because of the highlander part of the format. Aggro would rampage, because most decks need the extra turn to even stand a chance.
I argue that this is because of the current composition of control decks today.
2) A control deck is never built in a vaccum, but rather in response to the threats that are presented with in the format. Today they beat aggro with >20 damage taken because that's all they have to do. If they were forced to beat aggro decks with <20 damage taken then they would simply change their composition to make that happen.
Q: "How would they accomplish this?"
A: By running cards that in today's EDH 1v1 format are "bad" cards.
-Kitchen Finks
-Propaganda
-Rhox War Monk
-Wall of Omens
etc
1) Tendrils of Agony being too good.
Well first off I just wanted to point out that you contradicted yourself:
"would mean run combo or go home."
"Aggro would rampage"
Semantics aside, I think the issue you propose is in fact too complicated to assert blindly here. We can't know for sure if Tendrils will be too powerful in the future if we drop the lifetotals down to 20.
I will use an analogy to illustrate my point.
Imagine if you will that Legacy did not exist as it does now, but instead there was a group on a small sub forum on some website that were experimenting with a new format that included EVERYTHING except for a few of the most broken cards. And they were debating as too what those cards should be.
If someone came to them and showed them a modern ANT list that could win on turn 1 and always before t3, that group would probably be up in arms and calling for something to get banned.
However we know that those bans would be unnecessary as Legacy today is a balanced and fun format. (As a side note, if you do not find Legacy fun, then 1v1 EDH might not be for you)
I realize my analogy breaks down when you start talking about sideboards and what not, but I think fundamentally we are struggling with the same issues here in trying to differentiate between broken and merely strong.
If anybody is up for it I would love to play some test games of Aggro vs Tendrils (as long as your not running Oath) with 20 life to get a feel for the matchup.
Do you guys even realize that aggro is practically nonexistent right now in 1v1? Having 10 extra life keeps aggro from being viable, because it gives control and combo decks the extra time they need to blow out aggro decks.
Not only is this format totally broken, but it's also imbalanced in terms of archetypes. An ideal format is one that where all archetypes stand a chance of being viable. I do not want to see this format devolve into one where blue and black are oppressive, and attacking is fruitless.
This is exactly what I think. The best decks in the format are those that run >5 creatures and a ton of counterspells and combo pieces. No matter how viable the aforementioned aggro generals are, combo/control is just far too strong and consistent for the aggro matchup to matter most of the time.
Thing is, attacking is mostly fruitless because it only affects life totals and has no effect on board position. Giving such a huge buffer to combo for it to go off is just ridiculous. I would love to see some kind of change in the format to redefine archetype viability, even something such as compromising and setting life totals to 25 in 1v1 (albeit it is an awkward number).
I just really don't see why EDH life totals should be set to 30 when the amount of time it takes for combo to go off is so small that it would hardly even matter. Plus, it should be harder to combo out. The point to comboing is to control the board until your combo can be set up. If no controlling the board is required, the combo can be set up while taking damage from little aggro guys (and no real fear of losing due to huge life buffers), thus eliminating a whole dimension of the combo strategy.
Also, I believe the Highlander format has players start at 20 life. I just really don't see how this will skew the format so much that aggro would be the dominant archetype, as some decks can already combo out by turn 5-6, and even earlier, and I doubt even the most fervent aggro player can get his 20 damage in in time for that.
Emmara is like the worst parts of Legends and Homelands got pregnant, aborted the fetus, tossed it in the trashcan, set it on fire and wrapped the corpse in a Dragon's Maze pack wrapper.
look at a French tourney: there are control, combo and agro decks with a healthy distribution, because they have to respect a strong MUC. Of course it takes some specific meta calls to fight Clique, but she is not invincible
I find this extremely hard to believe. Where can I find tournament results for major French tournaments, especially those where non-control decks have proven viable in a tournament environment? I'm especially curious what constitutes a competitive aggro build in France (and if in fact they're more like Control decks with some creature finishers). Who are the generals that give mono-blue and blue-black generals a run for their money?
Emether also pointed out that the French metagame is probably less evolved than ours. People are playing aggro because they HAVE to play aggro, because they can't afford to put together the combo or control decks that usually cost a lot more.
I think that the French metagame is a lot more warped than ours--it looks healthy, but what's actually happening is that no one can afford to play combo, which would otherwise dominate their meta. Look at how the French have a history of banning really weak combo cards (Dark Depths, Life from the Loam) when those combos are cheap enough to play. Also, the mere fact that Clique isn't winning all the time indicates to me that something is wrong--either the aggro decks are sacrificing their other matchups just to beat Clique (which seems possible, as Doran is one of the best generals against Clique) or the Clique pilots are doing it wrong.
In short, don't use French results as a metric for a healthy metagame or an optimal model to follow. I've become increasingly convinced (especially with the banning of Erayo and Braids) that they don't have any more idea what they're doing than we do.
Personally, I think switching to 20 starting life would be best for the format. Note that there aren't any competitive formats that use more than 20 life. So many cards, and types of cards are skewed from their intended power level when the starting life is changed, from Serra Ascendant to Necropotence to any aggressive creature. Highlander, which is the closest analogue to 1v1 EDH, uses 20 life, and I think that format is healthier overall, with aggro, control, and combo all winning tournaments.
I agree with Narglfrob that aggro wouldn't dominate the format with 20 life. If no one changed their lists, then it would, but the whole point is that you would have to: right now, no one really plays efficient anti-aggro cards, because there's no need to do so. Myriad tools to fight aggro exist: once people start to include more of them in their decks, the metagame will balance out.
Lastly, I wonder if anyone's noticed magic-league's "Modified Commander" banlist. ML runs 1v1 EDH tournaments occasionally, about once a week or so, and someone over there came up with a unique banlist. It's by no means perfect (there are some weird things on it), but I can't help but think that overall it may actually be better than ours.
Banned Commanders:
Vendilion Clique
Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
Banned Cards:
Balance
Braids, Cabal Minion
Channel
Crucible of Worlds
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Fastbond
Gifts Ungiven
Karakas
Library of Alexandria
Lion's Eye Diamond
Mana Crypt
Mana Drain
Necropotence
Painter's Servant
Protean Hulk
Shahrazad
Sol Ring
Staff of Domination
Time Vault
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
Worldgorger Dragon
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Yawgmoth's Will
Power 8
Ante cards
So, from our list, they've unbanned:
Grindstone, Mind Twist, Mindslaver, Sundering Titan, Upheaval
and banned
Balance, Braids, Cabal Minion, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, Fastbond, Library of Alexandria, Lion's Eye Diamond, Mana Drain, Painter's Servant, Tolarian Academy, Worldgorger Dragon, Yawgmoth's Will
I'll argue the ins and outs of these changes later, but while a few of them are clearly unnecessary (Braids, Erayo, Yawg Will), I think that most of the rest are very reasonable and would result in a more balanced format.
I've been increasingly of the opinion that deck warping cards and strict auto-includes are bad for the format. The biggest offenders are Mana Drain, Balance, and Tolarian Academy. Mana Drain is sufficiently broken and enough better than every other counterspell even printed (even FoW) that too many games swing on it. I've had it cast against me something like 10 times tonight (and cast it myself about 4 times), and every time it resolved the game hinged on the free tempo boost. When Counterspell is already one of the best counters every printed, and Mana Drain is not only strictly better, but much better, it's a problem.
So...yeah, I kind of like this list. I don't know who made it, and I wouldn't take it as is, but I think it's actually a big step in the right direction. To make this format work competitively, we can afford to unban almost all of the mana-intensive bombs, but the rest of the brokenly fast mana and the insanely powerful effects for next to no mana probably need to get the boot.
I am a little wary of cutting all those storm cards as I think Storm is good but balanced currently, however if Tendrils of Agony were to be a problem it would be banning these guys that would fix it.
Keep in mind that a Gaddok Teeg aggro deck would have something like a reliable turn 5 goldfish (there are 10 GW 1 drops with 2 or more power!).
I would be really sad to see 1vs1 EDH turning into classical highlander 2.0... Taking down the starting life to 20, would destroy one of the format's unique characteristics, that I really like: general damage.
In the current MWS EDH tournament there are only ~4 decks that actually plan to attack and deal 21 general damage. And none of these decks strategies would really change with a different life total, dealing 20 damage with a general is still lethal. In short I don't see how we would be losing anything.
Off topic: I think Sharuum would get much MUCH better with 20 life point totals both because her body is great at stopping Aggro while simultaneously being far more of a threat (4 attacks instead of 5).
Glissa, the Traitor would similarly increase in competitiveness since her body rocks aggro so hard.
Aggro exists in our meta, it's just seldom-played because most aggro decks tend to be weak to both the combo and control decks that predominate. Aggro decks are best when the opponent has to keep a weak or slow hand; relying on luck to be able to gank people isn't the way to the top.
Furthermore, none of the successful aggro decks I've seen are really pure aggro: Sygg becomes control in the mid to late game, Wort can easily go combo, Radha plays a lot of land destruction, and so on. (I haven't played with your Isamaru yet, so I won't comment on that).
I'm skeptical that aggro answers Clique at all. It's surely better against it than combo or control, but I don't know of any aggro deck that does better than 50% against Clique (or even close to that). The biggest issue with legalizing Clique is that it invalidates so many other decks: it's so close to being strictly better than enough strategies that you wind up having to play either Clique or anti-Clique (which may not exist). Maaaaaybe you get enough people playing anti-Clique that you could be successful with an anti-anti-Clique deck, but that seems farfetched to me. Considering how resistant to netdecking/change most EDHers are, I think a far more likely scenario is that most people will continue to play what they already do, and Clique will simply prey on those decks and dominate the tournaments. Unlike Standard, the EDH metagame isn't neither fluid nor defined enough to expect everyone to change their generals to combat the Clique menace.
I don't think lowering the life total to 20 would significantly change the feel of the format. In 1v1, general damage is largely irrelevant anyway. I literally can't remember the last time I won or lost by general damage. None of the tier 1 decks (except Clique, which would kill in the same time anyway) win that way. It just...doesn't happen. If the game goes long enough that you take 21 damage from a general, you've almost surely taken 9 damage from other sources in that time. General damage would still exist and serve a useful, niche role. It would rarely be relevant, but so it is now. Keep in mind that any deck that DOES currently win with general damage can do so even easier with 20 life--that can only be a good thing, since none of those decks are much good now.
I agree with you on the banned list. I'm fine with the mana-intensive cards, because you can't get to a game-state where they're relevant without interaction (and if you resolve spells that big you should be able to make a huge impact with them). The 0-2 mana Vintage stuff that's legal now is a much bigger problem, since these cards are cheap enough that they can't really be played around or profitably interacted with. If you're very lucky, you can answer them immediately, and almost break even with your opponent. Otherwise, you tend to just lose, since whole games tend to swing on the use of any one of these spells.
I've reached a perspective where I regard balance (both between various archetypes in the metagame and between similarly matched players in individual games) to be far more important than the leanest possible banned list. We don't need to play incredibly broken cards to have good games, and in fact these cards markedly increase the luck factor involved in every game. I think it's clear that the format should balance somewhere closer to Legacy than Vintage: the good vintage combos are banned, while most of the Legacy ones are legal (though Painter's Servant/Grindstone is legal in Legacy and still too strong for EDH.) This doesn't mean that we need to ban everything banned in Legacy, but we need to be thinking in that kind of scope. Absurdly undercosted ancient cards have no place here: I know they're fun to play, but they undermine the fairness of the format. If we want to keep the competitive format from becoming degenerate (which is totally possible), these cards probably need to go. I know it's depressing (particularly if you own them and enjoy smashing your friends with them), but you'll have even more fun without them, because the games will be better.
Maybe you guys are right. I probably am biased, since I did the testing myself and found that every match I tested was tremendously in favor of Clique. I haven't a single game with the deck since, seeing no point in playing with or against a broken deck.
It does seem that a properly built modern aggro deck might have a decent matchup against Clique (Thrun doesn't count, because I'm pretty sure Thrun is just terrible against everything else).
I still have a problem with what Clique does to the metagame though. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the aggro decks can usually beat Clique (though I know that's not true), Clique beats everything else (which probably is true), and the "other decks" beat aggro (very vague assumption, I know, depends a lot on the strain of aggro). Until most of the metagame switches to aggro (which, let's face it, is unlikely to ever happen), Clique is very probably going to the statistically most successful deck, virtually indefinitely.
Personally, I would not be comfortable playing a deck that loses to Clique (since most competitively minded people know or think that it's top dog), so it's either play Clique or play the anti-Clique aggro (probably Lyzolda or Doran, which do the best against other aggro decks). By reintroducing Clique, you've knocked two entire archetypes out of viability--control and combo decks are just gone, obsoleted by a single deck. (It bugs the hell out of me that Clique constitutes, by itself, an entire archetype).
This takes us from the current situation, where combo is good, control is good, and aggro is good (if underplayed), to the French situation, where you only have Clique and aggro (and the occasionally hopeful control deck that beats aggro and loses horribly to Clique). Frankly, even allowing that Clique may be beatable by some deck, I think the status quo here is still better: it's a more balanced metagame. Currently, I feel like I can take almost any strategy and make it competitive: for example, I've been experimenting in the last couple days with Niv-Mizzet counterburn and Jhoira ramp-multicombo-monster-madness, and both (while untuned as of yet) seem to be quite good. If Clique was legal though, I wouldn't dream of playing either of these decks (or any number of other strategies), because they're just going to lose abysmally to Clique every time. The addition of Clique to the format takes so many strategies from at least potentially competitive to obsolete, which boxes in the format and breeds stagnation. Bad times.
So what is the compelling reason to unban Clique? Even beatable, we seem to be better off without it.
I feel pretty silly trying to argue about the French metagame with you, considering that neither one of us has first hand experience with it. Emether? You there? What do you think about all this?
I agree that the Mirrodin/Alara extended was very healthy (Extended is usually pretty good), but I don't feel that the French metagame is a good parallel. Again, I think the competitive MTGS metagame is much closer to have all the archetypes in balance. Aggro is very underplayed, but it seems to be more because people don't want to play it than because it's not competitive (it is). I just don't see why Clique is a necessary evil. Necessary for what? Like I said, it doesn't open up the format more, it just restricts what is viable.
Unbanning Clique doesn't boost permission control; if anything, it makes it less viable, since it loses to Clique. Clique is NOT permission control, it's not really a control deck at all. It's its own monster. I don't think anything can make real mono-blue control competitive: if you think about it, it's no longer a viable strategy in ANY format, from T1 to T2. Power creep has made too many threats too efficient for mono-blue to handle, and that's as true in EDH as anywhere (more so really, since the existence of generals is inherently disadvantageous for permission control). Pure permission control is a lost cause.
Aggro doesn't need the help. It's already viable, and can be made to thrash combo or control (like Sygg). It's not as played as it ought to be, but that will change over time. I repeat, the current metagame is very healthy in terms of viable strategies. Unbanning Clique will just upheave that balance. Either most people don't adjust and Clique dominates (as I fear) or they do adjust, and most control and combo decks become obsolete. Neither outcome is an improvement.
I don't know what happened to my long post. But basically I said i'm worried control will be further pushed into the combo realm (more like dark times deck).
V-Clique is still disgusting. She beats Adun, even with my list (It's hard to optimize her). She has RFG counterspells for darkblast and friends. I haven't had a chance vs aggro with her yet because im not fully confidant with my list.
Finnally can we agree on the bannings
Library of Alexandria
Balance
Considerations
Academy
Mana Drain
Hermit Druid.
I'll test with 20 lifetotals with everybody, and see how it goes.
I would be willing to try out 20 life with everybody else. I really don't want to see mana drain banned because I own one but it almost always leads to something stupid next turn so I could see a reason for it's banning. even though I plan on buying library eventually I could also see it being banned. I keep every hand if its in my opening seven just because I know it'll draw me in to a better hand. I'm also one thousand percent behind banning hermit Druid. One card win is a little tooooo good.
I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I'm really saddened by the "modified commander" banned list from a page or so back. Lots of hate for combo on there, and I'm not especially sure why.
I would be interested to play EDH at 20 life, if only to see what was different. I'd expect an influx of aggro, as it is inherently more consistent in a 100 card deck than the control or combo decks, and it's biggest disadvantage would have been removed. I do fear that 20 life would push combo out of the top tier (at least storm combo. Maybe Hermit Druid doesn't need as much time). This isn't inherently a bad thing, its just different.
@ Khymera: I don't think EDH, at least in 1v1, should be closer to legacy than to vintage. As is, its about halfway between both, and it feels perfect. All three major archetypes, and all of their sub-combination, are viable, even if some are underplayed, yet we have access to some of the most broken cards ever printed. What's more, every color combination is playable. If there is a problem with combo (which, for the record, I don't believe there is), then changing the life totals is the proper answer, not the banned list (though, to this day I have no idea how Balance has eluded that list).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
@Emether -- Thank you for that post. It was one of the most informative I've read in a long time. Don't be afraid to get involved more here; quality stuff like that is more than welcome.
Firstly I'd like to especially thank Emether for this insightful window into the French metagame. I sincerely hope more dialogue between the States and France can occur like this in the future so that we can better understand what's right for our own metagames and what's out of place.
Secondly: The banned list Hermit Druid - I'm fine seeing Hermit Druid go. One card combos are the lose, and I can't really see how green or white can beat this reliably.
Oath of Druids - I think arguments could be made to ban Oath of Druids, as well, as some decks need to win with their general and cannot do so with an Oath out. The other problem is that these usually end up fueling a huge combo turn, instead of a big fatty, which is even worse.
Survival of the Fittest - Survival is incredibly powerful, as well, and I could see arguments made for that. While I play prison more often than not in EDH, and I don't have nearly as many problems with a resolved Survival as a control deck, I'm well aware of it's potential. I personally love the idea of toolbox, and I think on the surface it would seem it provides a lot of interaction. However, the extent of that might just be "You do X, I survival up an answer for X. Next turn you do Y, I survival up an answer for Y. Next turn, you don't do anything, I survival up the best creature for the situation." If that is indeed the case, it should go.
Balance - Easily my favorite card in the game, but it's insane. It's at worst a removal spell + discard + LD spell and at best it's a full on Wrath + Mind Twist + Geddon, all for 1W. This definitely adds to the luck factor of just drawing an incredibly powerful card that's almost always useful (cause chances are, if it's in your deck, it's for a reason. You're not running this in 5 color aggro, obv). Luck factor is bad, and should be reduced. Add to this that decks that can search for it when it needs to are usually decks with blue and/or black, giving them even more ability to fight aggro decks. I think this should go.
Library of Alexandria - Sometimes this card sucks, and sometimes it's nigh unbeatable. Again, I usually can blow up lands with most of my decks, but when I can't, it just takes over the game most of the time. This goes in not only every control deck I make, but even some other ones like prison or control-combo. I think this card, at 30 life, warrants a ban for the simple reason that aggro isn't as much of a contender (where this card would suck most), the decks it is best in (control) usually beat combo anyway, and vs control, if you can keep it out, will likely win the game for you outright. Again, luck of the draw, which I am all about reducing as much as possible for the name of a healthier format.
Tolarian Academy - A staple for control and combo decks, which the MTGS meta is chock full of right now. Everyone is talking about aggro needing to be more represented. While there are many ways to do this (the third and fourth points outlined below), another way is to take some of the more powerful tools away from control and combo. I personally want a balanced meta where aggro is not only viable, but actually a serious contender. I would argue that Academy is serious enough of a tutor target that taking it away would level this playing field a bit. I'm fine with it going.
Thirdly: @LennonMarx & the 20 life issue
We discussed the idea of 20 life awhile back, perhaps a year to a year and a half ago. I remember you were all for it, and I was not. While that was a long time ago, my feelings are still the same on it, and that's mainly this: 20 life with the current banned list as it is now means much shorter games. I can't speak for everyone here but I, personally, love the fact that EDH games have the capability of lasting as long as they do. It is the same reason I now prefer the more balanced and less coin flippy Legacy over Vintage, my longest played format ever. I by no means want EDH as slow as Standard, but with 20 life, I think logically the games will have to be much shorter. I think one thing to consider when voting on this idea is whether one thinks that's a good or a bad thing. Is it likely that the entire composition of most EDH decks will change to adapt to new life total? Absolutely. Is it also possible those new builds will still allow for games that are as long, on average? Of course. However I think there are better ways to allow aggro a fighting chance instead of changing life points from 30 to 20.
Also to be noted, 20 life for the most point makes commander damage useless (except in the rare cases of tremendous lifegain). I can't remember the last time I even saw someone playing significant lifegain in EDH, if ever. That said, commander damage is a unique and interesting aspect of EDH that I personally like and adds flavor to the format. Khymera said it's for the most part useless, but I think that's very commander dependent.
Regardless, I think testing out a 20 life total would be interesting, and I'm all about shaking things up for potentially beneficial change. Especially if it will bring more interest to EDH. However, I think if that shift is made, careful scrutiny should be paid to which cards end up having a greater impact at 20 life than 30. For example, at 20 life, aggro should be a much better contender, making that first turn play of Library of Alexandria much more risky. Balance ends up being more powerful, as does Oath. Survival might end up being too slow to catch up with a fast, powerful aggro deck. These are things that should be tested and looked for.
Fourthly: Partial Paris
I see a lot of talk here of a "fair and balanced" format. If we hope to achieve that, I strongly believe Partial Paris is a huge problem that needs to be addressed for a number of reasons, outlined in my posts in the tournament thread here and here. The Reader's Digest of those points being a) it allows combo decks to abuse PP to find broken starts, b) it is significantly harder to capitalize on PP for some decks (decks without tutors or draw that need consistency, like aggro decks. These decks don't want to sculpt a perfect hand so much as they want to curve out reliably), c) a randomly mana flooded or dry hand can be thrown back and Big Deck Mull gives that hand a better chance of being evenly distributed (statistically speaking, normal distribution and all that); with Partial Paris, you're punished for having to mull away parts of your hand to attempt to get a balanced on. Point c is even worse if you're an aggro oriented deck (for example) trying to achieve a level of consistency so you can curve out while your opponent is sculpting a combo. I believe this pushes aggro even further from viability and should seriously be looked at along with the 20 point life span. I theorize that a return to the Big Deck Mull would actually bring such combo decks down in power and help aggro have a more fighting chance.
Lastly - Commanders Braids - I think this wouldn't even be a concern if Partial Paris was abolished and Big Deck Mull returned, straight up. As it is, this deck in my opinion (as well as others: see above links to the tournament thread) benefits from PP more than any other, and is only a problem while PP is the mull of choice for the format. Erayo - I don't see this being as big of a deal if aggro is re-introduced into the ecosystem. I think Erayo is already fragile enough as it is, suffering a huge blowout if Erayo is killed in response to the flip, or countered a couple of times. A huge amount of gas is necessary to power Erayo out, and with cards like Thrun being printed, I think Erayo's viability is even less significant. I personally think Erayo should stay unbanned as it is now, with no other changes. Rofellos - While I think Rofellos has better tools than he ever has, that doesn't mean he's banworthy. Those tools usually depend greatly on Rofellos, and there are just plenty of ways of killing him. I think at 30 life, Rofellos wants to take a controlish approach and capitalize on the high life total and try and get to huge spells. I think at 20 life, I think Rofellos would just pack more fatties to address aggro. I haven't seen much interest in Rofellos lately, however, so this may not be an issue. I think people either hate him or are fine with him. I'd be interested to see where Rofellos goes depending on what bans take place (if any), other generals, PP, etc. I think it should also be noted that in my personal experience, I've found a resolved Rofellos to be one of the best foils for Clique, which should be taken into consideration should Clique be unbanned. Clique - I think Clique would have a harder time in a format with 20 life. Efficient dudes and burn seem like Clique's absolute nightmare. I think Clique would be forced to address the resurgence of aggro, significantly lowering it's game vs other control decks; the days of a billion counters I think would, at that point, be over. Those counters don't mean anything if one or two creatures have already resolved and are beating face.
While this is true, green has no real reliable way of finding artifacts. They can tutor for Loaming Shaman, but that's too slow. Okay, sure, they've got Hornet Sting, the only thing that can reliably kill it that quickly.
White can use Enlightened Tutor for the grave hate, but that's about it.
Red has burn, blue has counters, black has plenty of removal. The other two are in the worst position to fight it. It seems like anyone wanting to play green or white without any of the above Grixis colors are banking on good draws or top decks.
Lets not get side tracked by debating the merits of Hermit Druid, it clearly has to go.
Yes every colour has answers, however we are talking about a 2 mana spell which is the easiest card type to both tutor for and recur.
Regarding expanding the Banlist, I am pretty much FOR all suggestions put forth by mutedequilibrium. Tolarian Academy is the least worrysome and could remain unbanned for now in my opinion.
Regarding the Partial Paris mulligan, I am neutral.
Regarding 20 life totals, I am a resoundingly FOR this plan. I would love to test 20 life EDH, I will draft up a list or two and if anyone see's me on Cockatrice or MWS feel free to hit me up for a game.
I've gotta voice my opinion against the 20 life total. It would feel a little too much like Legacy Singleton. The extra life total is what gives edh the extra room it needs to play the epic fatties and high cmc commanders that everyone loves so much. I think 30 was pushing it, but aggro needed it.
Yeah, as much as I love an excuse to break out my Keldon Champion and Lesser Gargadon, I don't think 20 life would really 'be' EDH. I'd be curious to hear feedback from anyone who's tried it though.
Actually, as players of Aussie Highlander would testify, the game is really not made any worse by lowering life totals to 20 (that said, Aussie Highlander substantial differences, chief of which includes having no Generals). That said, while the game is arguably no worse with 20 life, it is difficult to see if the game is really better with only 20 life. The only fair comment I'd make is that the game is "different" rather than being any "better" or "worse" compared to having 30 life.
...and yes, it can be a little like Vintage Singletons....
I've gotta voice my opinion against the 20 life total. It would feel a little too much like Legacy Singleton. The extra life total is what gives edh the extra room it needs to play the epic fatties and high cmc commanders that everyone loves so much. I think 30 was pushing it, but aggro needed it.
I couldn't agree more with this.
We have a player in our group who has fine-tuned his deck to be viable in duels while still managing to maintain that EDH feel to his decklist. That is, he plays midrange-to-high CMC fatties and a great number of board sweeps with just the right amount of disruption. I've seen the deck beat finely-tuned control, aggro, and combo in duels, and we're talking mono-blue, zoo, and Sisay. I have to admit that I respect his deck more than anyone else's, including my own (me being the Sisay player), because he's making Isperia of all generals WORK in a competitive playgroup, while still managing to make use of EDH bombs. If you're not losing to Spirit of the Hearth clawing your face off, are you really playing EDH?
For that matter, there's a Jund player we play with from time to time who does things similarly, playing all the best red/black/green/colorless fatties with the perfect balance of disruption and sweeps. Many consider his deck to be the best duel deck in NYC, and its curve makes it seem like a multiplayer deck, for all intents and purposes. And yet, there it is, placing top 3 in tournaments.
If we drop the life totals to 20, then these classic-EDH style decks would have to trudge their way back to multiplayer. No doubt about it, tiny creatures/aggro would rule the game, and this neither helps to "balance" the triangle nor to maintain the epic feel of the format, its key characteristic that separates it from Legacy and draws people to this community in the first place.
However, I'm in favor of all of mutedequilibrium's ban suggestions.
You hit the nail on the head here for me. I totally whole heartedly agree with the second part of your post. I was actually going to mention that but you beat me to it. I can't count how many times I've won with less than 10 life. Control would be a thing of the past if the life totals went down. Or at least the decks would be full of board sweepers from turn 2 on.
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
Not only is this format totally broken, but it's also imbalanced in terms of archetypes. An ideal format is one that where all archetypes stand a chance of being viable. I do not want to see this format devolve into one where blue and black are oppressive, and attacking is fruitless.
If we changed the life totals down to 20 then we would still have the exact same problem we do now. Only it would be reversed and aggro would be the dominant archetype.
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
We play semi competitive 1v1, so I don't have as much of the tournament experience that posters like SC have. But I think dropping to 20 isn't the way to make aggro work.
My Trade Thread!
I argue that this is because of the current composition of control decks today.
2) A control deck is never built in a vaccum, but rather in response to the threats that are presented with in the format. Today they beat aggro with >20 damage taken because that's all they have to do. If they were forced to beat aggro decks with <20 damage taken then they would simply change their composition to make that happen.
Q: "How would they accomplish this?"
A: By running cards that in today's EDH 1v1 format are "bad" cards.
-Kitchen Finks
-Propaganda
-Rhox War Monk
-Wall of Omens
etc
1) Tendrils of Agony being too good.
Well first off I just wanted to point out that you contradicted yourself:
"would mean run combo or go home."
"Aggro would rampage"
Semantics aside, I think the issue you propose is in fact too complicated to assert blindly here. We can't know for sure if Tendrils will be too powerful in the future if we drop the lifetotals down to 20.
I will use an analogy to illustrate my point.
Imagine if you will that Legacy did not exist as it does now, but instead there was a group on a small sub forum on some website that were experimenting with a new format that included EVERYTHING except for a few of the most broken cards. And they were debating as too what those cards should be.
If someone came to them and showed them a modern ANT list that could win on turn 1 and always before t3, that group would probably be up in arms and calling for something to get banned.
However we know that those bans would be unnecessary as Legacy today is a balanced and fun format. (As a side note, if you do not find Legacy fun, then 1v1 EDH might not be for you)
I realize my analogy breaks down when you start talking about sideboards and what not, but I think fundamentally we are struggling with the same issues here in trying to differentiate between broken and merely strong.
If anybody is up for it I would love to play some test games of Aggro vs Tendrils (as long as your not running Oath) with 20 life to get a feel for the matchup.
This is exactly what I think. The best decks in the format are those that run >5 creatures and a ton of counterspells and combo pieces. No matter how viable the aforementioned aggro generals are, combo/control is just far too strong and consistent for the aggro matchup to matter most of the time.
Thing is, attacking is mostly fruitless because it only affects life totals and has no effect on board position. Giving such a huge buffer to combo for it to go off is just ridiculous. I would love to see some kind of change in the format to redefine archetype viability, even something such as compromising and setting life totals to 25 in 1v1 (albeit it is an awkward number).
I just really don't see why EDH life totals should be set to 30 when the amount of time it takes for combo to go off is so small that it would hardly even matter. Plus, it should be harder to combo out. The point to comboing is to control the board until your combo can be set up. If no controlling the board is required, the combo can be set up while taking damage from little aggro guys (and no real fear of losing due to huge life buffers), thus eliminating a whole dimension of the combo strategy.
Also, I believe the Highlander format has players start at 20 life. I just really don't see how this will skew the format so much that aggro would be the dominant archetype, as some decks can already combo out by turn 5-6, and even earlier, and I doubt even the most fervent aggro player can get his 20 damage in in time for that.
I find this extremely hard to believe. Where can I find tournament results for major French tournaments, especially those where non-control decks have proven viable in a tournament environment? I'm especially curious what constitutes a competitive aggro build in France (and if in fact they're more like Control decks with some creature finishers). Who are the generals that give mono-blue and blue-black generals a run for their money?
Give me supporting evidence or give me death!
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
I think that the French metagame is a lot more warped than ours--it looks healthy, but what's actually happening is that no one can afford to play combo, which would otherwise dominate their meta. Look at how the French have a history of banning really weak combo cards (Dark Depths, Life from the Loam) when those combos are cheap enough to play. Also, the mere fact that Clique isn't winning all the time indicates to me that something is wrong--either the aggro decks are sacrificing their other matchups just to beat Clique (which seems possible, as Doran is one of the best generals against Clique) or the Clique pilots are doing it wrong.
In short, don't use French results as a metric for a healthy metagame or an optimal model to follow. I've become increasingly convinced (especially with the banning of Erayo and Braids) that they don't have any more idea what they're doing than we do.
Personally, I think switching to 20 starting life would be best for the format. Note that there aren't any competitive formats that use more than 20 life. So many cards, and types of cards are skewed from their intended power level when the starting life is changed, from Serra Ascendant to Necropotence to any aggressive creature. Highlander, which is the closest analogue to 1v1 EDH, uses 20 life, and I think that format is healthier overall, with aggro, control, and combo all winning tournaments.
I agree with Narglfrob that aggro wouldn't dominate the format with 20 life. If no one changed their lists, then it would, but the whole point is that you would have to: right now, no one really plays efficient anti-aggro cards, because there's no need to do so. Myriad tools to fight aggro exist: once people start to include more of them in their decks, the metagame will balance out.
Lastly, I wonder if anyone's noticed magic-league's "Modified Commander" banlist. ML runs 1v1 EDH tournaments occasionally, about once a week or so, and someone over there came up with a unique banlist. It's by no means perfect (there are some weird things on it), but I can't help but think that overall it may actually be better than ours.
So, from our list, they've unbanned:
Grindstone, Mind Twist, Mindslaver, Sundering Titan, Upheaval
and banned
Balance, Braids, Cabal Minion, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, Fastbond, Library of Alexandria, Lion's Eye Diamond, Mana Drain, Painter's Servant, Tolarian Academy, Worldgorger Dragon, Yawgmoth's Will
I'll argue the ins and outs of these changes later, but while a few of them are clearly unnecessary (Braids, Erayo, Yawg Will), I think that most of the rest are very reasonable and would result in a more balanced format.
I've been increasingly of the opinion that deck warping cards and strict auto-includes are bad for the format. The biggest offenders are Mana Drain, Balance, and Tolarian Academy. Mana Drain is sufficiently broken and enough better than every other counterspell even printed (even FoW) that too many games swing on it. I've had it cast against me something like 10 times tonight (and cast it myself about 4 times), and every time it resolved the game hinged on the free tempo boost. When Counterspell is already one of the best counters every printed, and Mana Drain is not only strictly better, but much better, it's a problem.
So...yeah, I kind of like this list. I don't know who made it, and I wouldn't take it as is, but I think it's actually a big step in the right direction. To make this format work competitively, we can afford to unban almost all of the mana-intensive bombs, but the rest of the brokenly fast mana and the insanely powerful effects for next to no mana probably need to get the boot.
Keep in mind that a Gaddok Teeg aggro deck would have something like a reliable turn 5 goldfish (there are 10 GW 1 drops with 2 or more power!).
Agree strongly to all of the above. I am playing Hermit Druid in the tournament currently and am 110% behind its banning.
I am also not a fan of Oath of Druids, but I know alot of people disagree with me.
In the current MWS EDH tournament there are only ~4 decks that actually plan to attack and deal 21 general damage. And none of these decks strategies would really change with a different life total, dealing 20 damage with a general is still lethal. In short I don't see how we would be losing anything.
Off topic: I think Sharuum would get much MUCH better with 20 life point totals both because her body is great at stopping Aggro while simultaneously being far more of a threat (4 attacks instead of 5).
Glissa, the Traitor would similarly increase in competitiveness since her body rocks aggro so hard.
Furthermore, none of the successful aggro decks I've seen are really pure aggro: Sygg becomes control in the mid to late game, Wort can easily go combo, Radha plays a lot of land destruction, and so on. (I haven't played with your Isamaru yet, so I won't comment on that).
I'm skeptical that aggro answers Clique at all. It's surely better against it than combo or control, but I don't know of any aggro deck that does better than 50% against Clique (or even close to that). The biggest issue with legalizing Clique is that it invalidates so many other decks: it's so close to being strictly better than enough strategies that you wind up having to play either Clique or anti-Clique (which may not exist). Maaaaaybe you get enough people playing anti-Clique that you could be successful with an anti-anti-Clique deck, but that seems farfetched to me. Considering how resistant to netdecking/change most EDHers are, I think a far more likely scenario is that most people will continue to play what they already do, and Clique will simply prey on those decks and dominate the tournaments. Unlike Standard, the EDH metagame isn't neither fluid nor defined enough to expect everyone to change their generals to combat the Clique menace.
I don't think lowering the life total to 20 would significantly change the feel of the format. In 1v1, general damage is largely irrelevant anyway. I literally can't remember the last time I won or lost by general damage. None of the tier 1 decks (except Clique, which would kill in the same time anyway) win that way. It just...doesn't happen. If the game goes long enough that you take 21 damage from a general, you've almost surely taken 9 damage from other sources in that time. General damage would still exist and serve a useful, niche role. It would rarely be relevant, but so it is now. Keep in mind that any deck that DOES currently win with general damage can do so even easier with 20 life--that can only be a good thing, since none of those decks are much good now.
I agree with you on the banned list. I'm fine with the mana-intensive cards, because you can't get to a game-state where they're relevant without interaction (and if you resolve spells that big you should be able to make a huge impact with them). The 0-2 mana Vintage stuff that's legal now is a much bigger problem, since these cards are cheap enough that they can't really be played around or profitably interacted with. If you're very lucky, you can answer them immediately, and almost break even with your opponent. Otherwise, you tend to just lose, since whole games tend to swing on the use of any one of these spells.
I've reached a perspective where I regard balance (both between various archetypes in the metagame and between similarly matched players in individual games) to be far more important than the leanest possible banned list. We don't need to play incredibly broken cards to have good games, and in fact these cards markedly increase the luck factor involved in every game. I think it's clear that the format should balance somewhere closer to Legacy than Vintage: the good vintage combos are banned, while most of the Legacy ones are legal (though Painter's Servant/Grindstone is legal in Legacy and still too strong for EDH.) This doesn't mean that we need to ban everything banned in Legacy, but we need to be thinking in that kind of scope. Absurdly undercosted ancient cards have no place here: I know they're fun to play, but they undermine the fairness of the format. If we want to keep the competitive format from becoming degenerate (which is totally possible), these cards probably need to go. I know it's depressing (particularly if you own them and enjoy smashing your friends with them), but you'll have even more fun without them, because the games will be better.
It does seem that a properly built modern aggro deck might have a decent matchup against Clique (Thrun doesn't count, because I'm pretty sure Thrun is just terrible against everything else).
I still have a problem with what Clique does to the metagame though. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the aggro decks can usually beat Clique (though I know that's not true), Clique beats everything else (which probably is true), and the "other decks" beat aggro (very vague assumption, I know, depends a lot on the strain of aggro). Until most of the metagame switches to aggro (which, let's face it, is unlikely to ever happen), Clique is very probably going to the statistically most successful deck, virtually indefinitely.
Personally, I would not be comfortable playing a deck that loses to Clique (since most competitively minded people know or think that it's top dog), so it's either play Clique or play the anti-Clique aggro (probably Lyzolda or Doran, which do the best against other aggro decks). By reintroducing Clique, you've knocked two entire archetypes out of viability--control and combo decks are just gone, obsoleted by a single deck. (It bugs the hell out of me that Clique constitutes, by itself, an entire archetype).
This takes us from the current situation, where combo is good, control is good, and aggro is good (if underplayed), to the French situation, where you only have Clique and aggro (and the occasionally hopeful control deck that beats aggro and loses horribly to Clique). Frankly, even allowing that Clique may be beatable by some deck, I think the status quo here is still better: it's a more balanced metagame. Currently, I feel like I can take almost any strategy and make it competitive: for example, I've been experimenting in the last couple days with Niv-Mizzet counterburn and Jhoira ramp-multicombo-monster-madness, and both (while untuned as of yet) seem to be quite good. If Clique was legal though, I wouldn't dream of playing either of these decks (or any number of other strategies), because they're just going to lose abysmally to Clique every time. The addition of Clique to the format takes so many strategies from at least potentially competitive to obsolete, which boxes in the format and breeds stagnation. Bad times.
So what is the compelling reason to unban Clique? Even beatable, we seem to be better off without it.
I agree that the Mirrodin/Alara extended was very healthy (Extended is usually pretty good), but I don't feel that the French metagame is a good parallel. Again, I think the competitive MTGS metagame is much closer to have all the archetypes in balance. Aggro is very underplayed, but it seems to be more because people don't want to play it than because it's not competitive (it is). I just don't see why Clique is a necessary evil. Necessary for what? Like I said, it doesn't open up the format more, it just restricts what is viable.
Unbanning Clique doesn't boost permission control; if anything, it makes it less viable, since it loses to Clique. Clique is NOT permission control, it's not really a control deck at all. It's its own monster. I don't think anything can make real mono-blue control competitive: if you think about it, it's no longer a viable strategy in ANY format, from T1 to T2. Power creep has made too many threats too efficient for mono-blue to handle, and that's as true in EDH as anywhere (more so really, since the existence of generals is inherently disadvantageous for permission control). Pure permission control is a lost cause.
Aggro doesn't need the help. It's already viable, and can be made to thrash combo or control (like Sygg). It's not as played as it ought to be, but that will change over time. I repeat, the current metagame is very healthy in terms of viable strategies. Unbanning Clique will just upheave that balance. Either most people don't adjust and Clique dominates (as I fear) or they do adjust, and most control and combo decks become obsolete. Neither outcome is an improvement.
V-Clique is still disgusting. She beats Adun, even with my list (It's hard to optimize her). She has RFG counterspells for darkblast and friends. I haven't had a chance vs aggro with her yet because im not fully confidant with my list.
Finnally can we agree on the bannings
Library of Alexandria
Balance
Considerations
Academy
Mana Drain
Hermit Druid.
I'll test with 20 lifetotals with everybody, and see how it goes.
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
I would be interested to play EDH at 20 life, if only to see what was different. I'd expect an influx of aggro, as it is inherently more consistent in a 100 card deck than the control or combo decks, and it's biggest disadvantage would have been removed. I do fear that 20 life would push combo out of the top tier (at least storm combo. Maybe Hermit Druid doesn't need as much time). This isn't inherently a bad thing, its just different.
@ Khymera: I don't think EDH, at least in 1v1, should be closer to legacy than to vintage. As is, its about halfway between both, and it feels perfect. All three major archetypes, and all of their sub-combination, are viable, even if some are underplayed, yet we have access to some of the most broken cards ever printed. What's more, every color combination is playable. If there is a problem with combo (which, for the record, I don't believe there is), then changing the life totals is the proper answer, not the banned list (though, to this day I have no idea how Balance has eluded that list).
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Keep the quality comin'
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
I'd like to especially thank Emether for this insightful window into the French metagame. I sincerely hope more dialogue between the States and France can occur like this in the future so that we can better understand what's right for our own metagames and what's out of place.
Secondly: The banned list
Hermit Druid - I'm fine seeing Hermit Druid go. One card combos are the lose, and I can't really see how green or white can beat this reliably.
Oath of Druids - I think arguments could be made to ban Oath of Druids, as well, as some decks need to win with their general and cannot do so with an Oath out. The other problem is that these usually end up fueling a huge combo turn, instead of a big fatty, which is even worse.
Survival of the Fittest - Survival is incredibly powerful, as well, and I could see arguments made for that. While I play prison more often than not in EDH, and I don't have nearly as many problems with a resolved Survival as a control deck, I'm well aware of it's potential. I personally love the idea of toolbox, and I think on the surface it would seem it provides a lot of interaction. However, the extent of that might just be "You do X, I survival up an answer for X. Next turn you do Y, I survival up an answer for Y. Next turn, you don't do anything, I survival up the best creature for the situation." If that is indeed the case, it should go.
Balance - Easily my favorite card in the game, but it's insane. It's at worst a removal spell + discard + LD spell and at best it's a full on Wrath + Mind Twist + Geddon, all for 1W. This definitely adds to the luck factor of just drawing an incredibly powerful card that's almost always useful (cause chances are, if it's in your deck, it's for a reason. You're not running this in 5 color aggro, obv). Luck factor is bad, and should be reduced. Add to this that decks that can search for it when it needs to are usually decks with blue and/or black, giving them even more ability to fight aggro decks. I think this should go.
Library of Alexandria - Sometimes this card sucks, and sometimes it's nigh unbeatable. Again, I usually can blow up lands with most of my decks, but when I can't, it just takes over the game most of the time. This goes in not only every control deck I make, but even some other ones like prison or control-combo. I think this card, at 30 life, warrants a ban for the simple reason that aggro isn't as much of a contender (where this card would suck most), the decks it is best in (control) usually beat combo anyway, and vs control, if you can keep it out, will likely win the game for you outright. Again, luck of the draw, which I am all about reducing as much as possible for the name of a healthier format.
Tolarian Academy - A staple for control and combo decks, which the MTGS meta is chock full of right now. Everyone is talking about aggro needing to be more represented. While there are many ways to do this (the third and fourth points outlined below), another way is to take some of the more powerful tools away from control and combo. I personally want a balanced meta where aggro is not only viable, but actually a serious contender. I would argue that Academy is serious enough of a tutor target that taking it away would level this playing field a bit. I'm fine with it going.
Thirdly: @LennonMarx & the 20 life issue
We discussed the idea of 20 life awhile back, perhaps a year to a year and a half ago. I remember you were all for it, and I was not. While that was a long time ago, my feelings are still the same on it, and that's mainly this: 20 life with the current banned list as it is now means much shorter games. I can't speak for everyone here but I, personally, love the fact that EDH games have the capability of lasting as long as they do. It is the same reason I now prefer the more balanced and less coin flippy Legacy over Vintage, my longest played format ever. I by no means want EDH as slow as Standard, but with 20 life, I think logically the games will have to be much shorter. I think one thing to consider when voting on this idea is whether one thinks that's a good or a bad thing. Is it likely that the entire composition of most EDH decks will change to adapt to new life total? Absolutely. Is it also possible those new builds will still allow for games that are as long, on average? Of course. However I think there are better ways to allow aggro a fighting chance instead of changing life points from 30 to 20.
Also to be noted, 20 life for the most point makes commander damage useless (except in the rare cases of tremendous lifegain). I can't remember the last time I even saw someone playing significant lifegain in EDH, if ever. That said, commander damage is a unique and interesting aspect of EDH that I personally like and adds flavor to the format. Khymera said it's for the most part useless, but I think that's very commander dependent.
Regardless, I think testing out a 20 life total would be interesting, and I'm all about shaking things up for potentially beneficial change. Especially if it will bring more interest to EDH. However, I think if that shift is made, careful scrutiny should be paid to which cards end up having a greater impact at 20 life than 30. For example, at 20 life, aggro should be a much better contender, making that first turn play of Library of Alexandria much more risky. Balance ends up being more powerful, as does Oath. Survival might end up being too slow to catch up with a fast, powerful aggro deck. These are things that should be tested and looked for.
Fourthly: Partial Paris
I see a lot of talk here of a "fair and balanced" format. If we hope to achieve that, I strongly believe Partial Paris is a huge problem that needs to be addressed for a number of reasons, outlined in my posts in the tournament thread here and here. The Reader's Digest of those points being a) it allows combo decks to abuse PP to find broken starts, b) it is significantly harder to capitalize on PP for some decks (decks without tutors or draw that need consistency, like aggro decks. These decks don't want to sculpt a perfect hand so much as they want to curve out reliably), c) a randomly mana flooded or dry hand can be thrown back and Big Deck Mull gives that hand a better chance of being evenly distributed (statistically speaking, normal distribution and all that); with Partial Paris, you're punished for having to mull away parts of your hand to attempt to get a balanced on. Point c is even worse if you're an aggro oriented deck (for example) trying to achieve a level of consistency so you can curve out while your opponent is sculpting a combo. I believe this pushes aggro even further from viability and should seriously be looked at along with the 20 point life span. I theorize that a return to the Big Deck Mull would actually bring such combo decks down in power and help aggro have a more fighting chance.
Lastly - Commanders
Braids - I think this wouldn't even be a concern if Partial Paris was abolished and Big Deck Mull returned, straight up. As it is, this deck in my opinion (as well as others: see above links to the tournament thread) benefits from PP more than any other, and is only a problem while PP is the mull of choice for the format.
Erayo - I don't see this being as big of a deal if aggro is re-introduced into the ecosystem. I think Erayo is already fragile enough as it is, suffering a huge blowout if Erayo is killed in response to the flip, or countered a couple of times. A huge amount of gas is necessary to power Erayo out, and with cards like Thrun being printed, I think Erayo's viability is even less significant. I personally think Erayo should stay unbanned as it is now, with no other changes.
Rofellos - While I think Rofellos has better tools than he ever has, that doesn't mean he's banworthy. Those tools usually depend greatly on Rofellos, and there are just plenty of ways of killing him. I think at 30 life, Rofellos wants to take a controlish approach and capitalize on the high life total and try and get to huge spells. I think at 20 life, I think Rofellos would just pack more fatties to address aggro. I haven't seen much interest in Rofellos lately, however, so this may not be an issue. I think people either hate him or are fine with him. I'd be interested to see where Rofellos goes depending on what bans take place (if any), other generals, PP, etc. I think it should also be noted that in my personal experience, I've found a resolved Rofellos to be one of the best foils for Clique, which should be taken into consideration should Clique be unbanned.
Clique - I think Clique would have a harder time in a format with 20 life. Efficient dudes and burn seem like Clique's absolute nightmare. I think Clique would be forced to address the resurgence of aggro, significantly lowering it's game vs other control decks; the days of a billion counters I think would, at that point, be over. Those counters don't mean anything if one or two creatures have already resolved and are beating face.
Let's discuss.
White can use Enlightened Tutor for the grave hate, but that's about it.
Red has burn, blue has counters, black has plenty of removal. The other two are in the worst position to fight it. It seems like anyone wanting to play green or white without any of the above Grixis colors are banking on good draws or top decks.
Yes every colour has answers, however we are talking about a 2 mana spell which is the easiest card type to both tutor for and recur.
Regarding expanding the Banlist, I am pretty much FOR all suggestions put forth by mutedequilibrium. Tolarian Academy is the least worrysome and could remain unbanned for now in my opinion.
Regarding the Partial Paris mulligan, I am neutral.
Regarding 20 life totals, I am a resoundingly FOR this plan. I would love to test 20 life EDH, I will draft up a list or two and if anyone see's me on Cockatrice or MWS feel free to hit me up for a game.
Banner by Nakamura, Thanks!
EDH Math
EDH Decks:
Ghost Council: The Magic Mafia of Orzhova
BB Drana: Down with the Sickness
Rasputin: Reality is Broken
Vish Kal Bleeder: Bloody Kisses
Teysa, Orzhov Dominatrix
Stonebrow: Breaking Things
BWR Kaalia Punisher: Heaven's on Fire
Grimgrin: Dead Reckoning
...and yes, it can be a little like Vintage Singletons....
I couldn't agree more with this.
We have a player in our group who has fine-tuned his deck to be viable in duels while still managing to maintain that EDH feel to his decklist. That is, he plays midrange-to-high CMC fatties and a great number of board sweeps with just the right amount of disruption. I've seen the deck beat finely-tuned control, aggro, and combo in duels, and we're talking mono-blue, zoo, and Sisay. I have to admit that I respect his deck more than anyone else's, including my own (me being the Sisay player), because he's making Isperia of all generals WORK in a competitive playgroup, while still managing to make use of EDH bombs. If you're not losing to Spirit of the Hearth clawing your face off, are you really playing EDH?
For that matter, there's a Jund player we play with from time to time who does things similarly, playing all the best red/black/green/colorless fatties with the perfect balance of disruption and sweeps. Many consider his deck to be the best duel deck in NYC, and its curve makes it seem like a multiplayer deck, for all intents and purposes. And yet, there it is, placing top 3 in tournaments.
If we drop the life totals to 20, then these classic-EDH style decks would have to trudge their way back to multiplayer. No doubt about it, tiny creatures/aggro would rule the game, and this neither helps to "balance" the triangle nor to maintain the epic feel of the format, its key characteristic that separates it from Legacy and draws people to this community in the first place.
However, I'm in favor of all of mutedequilibrium's ban suggestions.
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread